If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It won't matter and she probably doesn't care. She might ask the staffer who fed her that line of questioning to be more careful.

Last edited by U-Ute; 09-11-2018 at 02:29 PM.
Reason: Fix link

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I am so tired of this type of crap. I have not seen anything that suggests that Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

I agree with each item you mention and while those views are troubling to me personally, I don't believe that holding them make him unqualified.

I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

It’s all a matter of one‘s political persuasion, I guess. When Kagan came
up for confirmation there was no doubt how she would vote on the issues you described. And yet people on my side of the aisle pretty much figured that Obama had won the election, and he had the right to appoint a justice he liked. Of course, the difference was that Kagan was not going to be a swing vote, like Kavanaugh will be (and that’s only because of how the Democrats defeated Bork, then Ginsberg was found to have smoked marijuana [!!!], and we ended up with Kennedy, who turned out to to be the favorite justice of many liberals). Had the situation been different, there might have been more of a GOP outcry against Kagan. I’m not sure — I don’t think Republicans have mounted campaigns against judicial nominees the way the Democrats have. That might just be a matter of how each nominee came up, and when.

As I’ve said before, I think the Supreme Court is just too darned important now. People on both sides of the aisle, but mainly on the left, see the SCOTUS as a means of achieving their policy goals, usually goals that can’t be achieved at the ballot box. That sounds like a slam, and it is, but it’s only a very gentle one. But this is all just a matter of the tides of history, I guess. Maybe that is the proper role of the courts. I don’t think so, but nobody ever checks with me about these things in advance. It’s very frustrating for me.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

It’s all a matter of one‘s political persuasion, I guess. When Kagan came
up for confirmation there was no doubt how she would vote on the issues you described. And yet people on my side of the aisle pretty much figured that Obama had won the election, and he had the right to appoint a justice he liked. Of course, the difference was that Kagan was not going to be a swing vote, like Kavanaugh will be (and that’s only because of how the Democrats defeated Bork, then Ginsberg was found to have smoked marijuana [!!!], and we ended up with Kennedy, who turned out to to be the favorite justice of many liberals). Had the situation been different, there might have been more of a GOP outcry against Kagan. I’m not sure — I don’t think Republicans have mounted campaigns against judicial nominees the way the Democrats have. That might just be a matter of how each nominee came up, and when.

As I’ve said before, I think the Supreme Court is just too darned important now. People on both sides of the aisle, but mainly on the left, see the SCOTUS as a means of achieving their policy goals, usually goals that can’t be achieved at the ballot box. That sounds like a slam, and it is, but it’s only a very gentle one. But this is all just a matter of the tides of history, I guess. Maybe that is the proper role of the courts. I don’t think so, but nobody ever checks with me about these things in advance. It’s very frustrating for me.

I agree; it is a matter of political persuasion. McConnell hit the jackpot when he refused a vote on Merrick Garland. At the time, I thought he was foolhardy, and would end up with someone Hillary appointed much more liberal and younger than Garland. On both sides, i wish that they had kept the filibuster for Sup. Ct. nominees, to keep people on the extremes from getting nominated. And I do believe that while Kavanaugh is very qualified, he is extreme.

And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile; we all remember that even Hatch has said Garland would make an excellent justice.

And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile

I don't know. Garland would have voted with the liberal justices on every hot button issue. Maybe he'd have been conservative on some of the cases that only lawyers know about. I'm sure that conservatives would not have experienced Garland as a compromise.

When a vote is a discrete yes/no, it doesn't really matter that ideology is a continuous spectrum.

And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile; we all remember that even Hatch has said Garland would make an excellent justice.

I thought the Garland nomination was very clever. He is center-left and moderate — very vanilla. Kennedy was center-right, with occasional forays to the left (to the rapturous delight of liberals, and the outrage of conservatives). So although Garland looked like a very reasonable nomination, the shift on the Court would have been significant — and I think Garland was around 63 years old at the time. Clever.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I thought the Garland nomination was very clever. He is center-left and moderate — very vanilla. Kennedy was center-right, with occasional forays to the left (to the rapturous delight of liberals, and the outrage of conservatives). So although Garland looked like a very reasonable nomination, the shift on the Court would have been significant — and I think Garland was around 63 years old at the time. Clever.

I don't know. Garland would have voted with the liberal justices on every hot button issue. Maybe he'd have been conservative on some of the cases that only lawyers know about. I'm sure that conservatives would not have experienced Garland as a compromise.

When a vote is a discrete yes/no, it doesn't really matter that ideology is a continuous spectrum.

We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

Sure. Kavanaugh is a conservative. Then again, so is John Roberts, who has been more independent than expected. Kavanaugh is just one vote, after all. Right now there are 4 almost 100% predictable liberals and 3 equally predictable conservatives, and Roberts. Who knows what will happen? Roe is so settled, as is Obergefell, and so many permanent societal adjustments have been made around those decisions, I can’t really imagine either one being overturned.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don;t think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

You don't believe in emanating penumbras?

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Sure. Kavanaugh is a conservative. Then again, so is John Roberts, who has been more independent than expected. Kavanaugh is just one vote, after all. Right now there are 4 almost 100% predictable liberals and 3 equally predictable conservatives, and Roberts. Who knows what will happen? Roe is so settled, as is Obergefell, and so many permanent societal adjustments have been made around those decisions, I can’t really imagine either one being overturned.

I think Breyer is about as independent as Roberts. Roberts shocked everyone on the ACA decision, but has he been "independent" anywhere else? An while his decision certainly impacted the ACA decision didn't impact anything beyond the ACA and his analysis won't impact other cases or issues.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Roberts may see the possible negative political impacts of more "aggressive" conservative decisions, and try to restrain the other conservatives.
The next great movement might be to strip corporations and other entities the status persons for the purposes of constitutional protections. That's the only way to prevent money from controlling politics.

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

It was 40 years ago that I read it, so I couldn't even begin to comment on its analysis. If it's so bad, why isn't it ripe to overturned with Roberts being the most moderate of five justices? At least four of the justices are adherents of the Federalist Society. What's it's stance on Griswold and penumbral rights?

Roberts has expressed one unifying principle of his approach to constitutional jurisprudence. He calls it “judicial modesty.“ I think we saw that with the ACA decision. He simply doesn’t think courts should assume the role of overturning an act of Congress that passed with a large majority, for example. My guess is that belief was what motivated his effort not to overturn the ACA in a 5-4 decision. I also guess, and that’s all I am doing, that his bitter dissent in Obergefell (the gay marriage decision) was motivated by the same belief — don’t make a hugely important decision on an issue like that in a 5-4 vote. Instead, let the people work it out in their legislatures.

So I doubt that a Roberts-led court is going to be remaking the constitutional law of the land much, especially when there is a 5-4 split and he is a potential swing vote, and he is the chief justice who has responsibility for guiding the court as much as possible. We will see. I think our institutions are pretty sound and pretty durable, thanks to the wisdom of a bunch of now-dead white males 250 years ago.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

I don't have that confidence. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner were all settled law. And you can chip away and circumscribe into oblivion without overturning.

I don't have that confidence. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner were all settled law. And you can chip away and circumscribe into oblivion without overturning.

Isn't that what liberals want the SCOTUS to do with 2nd Amendment precedent? (I am not a gun owner or gun rights enthusiast, BTW.)

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Isn't that what liberals want the SCOTUS to do with 2nd Amendment precedent? (I am not a gun owner or gun rights enthusiast, BTW.)

Not me. Heller said the right to bear arms is an individual right, subject to regulation. The question is what is a reasonable regulation within the 2nd amendment. The DC Cir upheld certain regulations; Kavanaugh dissented. I want the Supreme Court to uphold and not chip away the regulations that have been enacted or upheld by the lower courts--assault weapon bans, magazine limitations, background checks, mental health restrictions, etc. The NRA would strike them all down.

Asked to compare the Kavanaugh hearings to her own, she says, "The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong."

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

Count me as one conservative Republican who just doesn’t accept that way of thinking and never will.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

We don't have to imagine, we just need to look at history of the 1930s.

"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant

I'm not a lawyer, and am probably completely out of my depth on a discussion such as this, but at this time I just don't see a court case getting anywhere near the Supreme Court that could over turn Roe v Wade, though the odds might be just a little better than on the possibility of an amendment ever getting out of the congress and being ratified by the requisite number of states.

"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant